23/08/2026
🚨 ROSE BAY & DOUBLE BAY RESIDENTS — PLEASE SEND LATE CORRESPONDENCE FOR TOMORROW’S COUNCIL MEETING
⏰ DEADLINE: 10am TOMORROW (MONDAY 24 AUGUST)
There are several important items before Woollahra Council TOMORROW night with significant implications for Rose Bay, Double Bay and future LMR development.
Last week, Council's Extraordinary Strategic & Corporate Committee considered Council staff's “Alternate Approach” to the State Government's proposed rezoning of Woollahra and Edgecliff. The Committee amended it and recommended it unanimously, 13–0. This Monday it goes before the full Council as ITEM 13.1.7.
The important question for Rose Bay and Double Bay is simple:
WHY shouldn't the same evidence-based approach to growth also apply to Rose Bay and Double Bay?
You do not need to write a long submission. Below are the exact agenda items and issues you may wish to raise.
⚠️ ITEM 13.1.7 — EVIDENCE-BASED PLANNING FOR GROWTH / ALTERNATE APPROACH
Council's Alternate Approach is based on place-specific evidence and constraints. Importantly, its methodology starts with:
“GEOLOGY, LANDFORM & ECOLOGY”
and states:
“a place’s geological setting informs all other layers of the built environment and design decision making process.”
Yet the Alternate Approach applies to Woollahra and Edgecliff — NOT Rose Bay and Double Bay, despite Rose Bay and Double Bay containing Council-mapped Settlement Areas.
Following last week's meeting, Council's proposed resolution also now acknowledges:
“the cumulative impacts of projected increased density throughout the wider municipality and beyond”
and says those cumulative impacts “must be considered when determining the scale and form of growth”.
But the resolution specifically lists roads, water, sewerage, electricity, schools, community facilities and open space.
What about the cumulative environmental and geotechnical constraints in Rose Bay and Double Bay — including groundwater, settlement, flooding, coastal hazards and substantial excavation?
👉 ITEM 13.1.7 - YOU MAY ASK COUNCIL:
1. WHY isn't Council applying the same evidence-based, geology-first planning approach to increased density in Rose Bay and Double Bay?
2. WHEN will Council's outstanding groundwater /hydrogeological and flood-risk work for Rose Bay be completed and publicly released?
3. WILL Council urgently develop an evidence-based approach for growth across the entire LGA, including the mapped Settlement Areas?
🏗️ ITEM 12.4 — THE NEW SYDNEY PLAN: THIS IS IMPORTANT
Council's own Item 12.4 report says the final Sydney Plan requires “Infrastructure and environmental outcomes” to be delivered alongside growth.
But Councillors and residents should also be aware of what the Sydney Plan itself actually says.
On environmental management, the final Plan states:
“Planning controls and environmental management approaches must be aligned.”
It then says environmental and water-system considerations should be embedded:
“at the earliest stages of planning to identify, manage and mitigate on-site, cumulative and beyond-site impacts, rather than deferring these issues to later development stages when options become limited and costs are increased.”
On hazards, the Plan separately says:
“Councils should collaborate across boundaries when planning for hazards, including considering cumulative and downstream impacts.”
And one of its specific Council actions is to:
“Review hazard studies using up-to-date, local place-based data on current and future exposure and vulnerability to hazards and climate change to inform land use and infrastructure planning decisions”.
This matters enormously for Rose Bay and Double Bay.
Council is being required to plan for substantially more housing. But the Sydney Plan itself is also telling councils to use local, place-based hazard evidence, consider cumulative, downstream and beyond-site impacts, and address environmental issues early rather than deferring them.
⚠️ NSW PLANNING'S OWN GUIDANCE ON DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT
There is also an important connection between these strategic-planning principles and the assessment of individual DAs.
NSW Planning's official Guide to writing conditions of consent says deferred commencement conditions can be useful in certain circumstances, but should be imposed “with caution”.
More importantly, it expressly states:
“A deferred commencement condition should not defer consideration of a critical component of the development assessment process.”
And:
“The likely impacts of the development need to be considered during the assessment of the DA, before the consent is granted.”
The Guide goes further, warning that a failure to properly consider a likely impact before consent is granted “may result in the consent being declared invalid if it is legally challenged.”
This does not mean that every technical or construction detail must be finalised before consent.
But it does raise a critical question: what can properly be deferred — and what must already have been adequately assessed before consent?
đź”´ SO RESIDENTS SHOULD ASK: WHAT HAPPENED AT 1 RICHMOND ROAD, ROSE BAY?
On Thursday, the Woollahra Local Planning Panel granted deferred commencement consent to 1 Richmond Road, Rose Bay, following Council staff's recommendation.
The site is within the mapped Rose Bay Settlement Area.
The applicant's June geotechnical material recorded groundwater at approximately RL 2.9m AHD — around 2 metres below ground level — while excavation for the car stacker extends to approximately RL –0.95m AHD, about 6.25 metres below existing ground level.
The material also said groundwater monitoring was ongoing, a third monitoring well was still required, and recommended further permeability testing for hydrogeological analysis.
Most importantly, Council's own proposed deferred commencement requirements required the applicant AFTER determination to update the geotechnical report to address matters including:
• adverse settlement or movement;
• groundwater impacts on surrounding property and infrastructure;
• groundwater controls; and
• support and retention of the excavation.
Council nevertheless concluded:
“The site as conditioned is suitable for the proposed development”.
And Council's own recommended dilapidation condition expressly warned:
“This condition cannot prevent neighbouring buildings being damaged by the carrying out of the development.”
This is exactly why residents need an answer.
Residents' concern is that monitoring, trigger levels and corrective action are risk-management measures, but they do not themselves establish before consent that unacceptable movement will not occur.
The Sydney Plan now expressly says environmental issues should be addressed “at the earliest stages of planning”, rather than deferred until later when “options become limited and costs are increased.”
NSW Planning's conditions guidance separately says that “The likely impacts of the development need to be considered during the assessment of the DA, before the consent is granted” and that “A deferred commencement condition should not defer consideration of a critical component of the development assessment process.”
The key question is: WHAT can properly be deferred — and what must already have been adequately assessed BEFORE consent?
👉 ITEM 12.4 - YOU MAY ASK COUNCIL:
1. HOW does Council reconcile its approach at 1 Richmond Road with these principles?
2. WHAT groundwater, settlement, excavation and beyond-site impacts had actually been adequately assessed BEFORE consent, and what remained to be investigated or established afterwards?
3. HOW did Council satisfy itself that “The site as conditioned is suitable for the proposed development” before the further geotechnical work required by the deferred commencement conditions had been completed?
4. WILL Council commit to ensuring that critical groundwater, excavation, settlement and site-suitability issues in the mapped Rose Bay and Double Bay Settlement Areas are adequately assessed BEFORE consent, rather than leaving critical components of assessment to later conditions?
DOUBLE BAY RESIDENTS: The recently approved development at 55 William Street, Double Bay, which includes two basement parking levels, raises the same important question for residents: what critical groundwater, excavation, settlement and beyond-site impacts were adequately assessed before consent, and what — if anything — was left to be investigated, designed or resolved afterwards?
📊 QWN 16.7 — CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ACROSS THE WHOLE LGA
This is another important question before Council.
QWN 16.7 records that Council's Alternate Approach estimates 5,200 dwellings could already be delivered within the rezoning area and more than 10,800 across the broader area of influence through existing pathways, including SSDAs and LMR, independently of the proposed rezoning.
It expressly asks about:
“multiple overlapping planning pathways”.
👉 QWN 16.7 - YOU MAY ASK COUNCIL:
1. If Council accepts that these overlapping development pathways need to be considered cumulatively for traffic, infrastructure and open space, why aren't their potential cumulative groundwater, excavation, settlement and flooding impacts being assessed across the mapped Rose Bay and Double Bay Settlement Areas?
2. How much development can these areas safely accommodate? Where is the precinct-wide evidence? Residents are concerned of the risks posed by individual DA’s, let alone cumulative impacts given the zones of influence in the mapped Settlement Areas.
🚗 QWN 16.5 — ROSE BAY LMR TRAFFIC
This Question With Notice records the traffic consultant's finding that:
“less than 7% capacity is available on New South Head Road in the peak traffic direction”.
It specifically asks:
“what is the likely impact of additional traffic generated to and from the State led Low-Mid Rise Housing zone MR in Rose Bay along New South head Road and Old South Head Road.”
👉 QWN 16.5 - YOU MAY ASK COUNCIL:
1. Has the cumulative traffic generated by Rose Bay and Double Bay LMR development actually been modelled?
2. Has Old South Head Road been assessed?
3. Doesn't this reinforce the need for an evidence-based growth strategy that looks at the whole LGA, rather than Woollahra and Edgecliff alone?
🌊 QWN 16.1 — COMPLETED COASTAL HAZARD REPORTS: WHY CONFIDENTIAL?
Council confirms:
“Technical reports have been completed”
addressing:
“coastal hazards, water quality, recreation and access”.
The Councillors asking QWN 16.1 say understanding the risks of:
“flooding, inundation and coastal erosion”
is:
“crucial to Councillors' decision-making on zoning and other issues.”
Yet staff propose presenting the completed technical reports as a Confidential report to the Strategic & Corporate Committee in October.
👉 QWN 16.1 - YOU MAY ASK COUNCIL:
1. WHY are completed reports about environmental hazards relevant to zoning proposed to be considered confidentially?
2. WHEN will they be publicly released?
3. WHY should major decisions about future density be made before Councillors and the community can consider this evidence?
✉️ PLEASE WRITE BEFORE 10am MONDAY
The central point is simple.
Council now has an opportunity to present the State Government with an evidence-based Alternate Approach to growth — so why not develop that approach for the LGA as a whole, including Rose Bay and Double Bay, particularly given the known and mapped constraints and risks in those areas, rather than continuing with a piecemeal approach?
And following the decision at 1 Richmond Road, residents are entitled to ask a very specific question:
What critical environmental risks must be understood BEFORE consent — and what can legitimately be left until afterwards?
EMAIL: [email protected]
📧 SUBJECT: Late Correspondence – Council 24 August – Items 13.1.7 & 12.4 / QWN 16.1, 16.5 & 16.7 – Rose Bay & Double Bay LMR
⏰ DEADLINE: 10am MONDAY 24 AUGUST
Even a short email matters.
Link to the meeting and agenda documents: https://woollahra.resolve.red/web/Player.aspx?id=2885&key=-1&mod=-1&mk=-1&nov=0
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure Kellie Sloane MP - NSW Liberal Leader Chris Minns Paul Scully MP NSW Ombudsman Local Government NSW
